Andrew Dismore: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	This is my fifth attempt to get this Bill through Parliament. I managed to get as far as Report stage a couple of years ago, but this time I hope to break that record and get to Third Reading—if not all the way through. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), the Chief Whip, was here to give the Queen's consent and I congratulate him on his appointment. We only knew we had Queen's consent at 2 minutes past 5 last night. I do not know whether that was due to difficulties in the Department or problems at the palace. I presented the Bill on 18 December and named the Second Reading date of today well over six months ago. I wrote to the Department on 22 March asking it to get Queen's consent. It wrote on 24 May and Queen's consent came though at 2 minutes past 5 last night. We might have had a constitutional problem if the consent had not been given, but all's well that ends well and I am pleased to say that we can proceed with the Bill.
	I have been persistent because the real problems that the Bill seeks to address remain. The purpose of the Bill is to remove the existing restrictions placed on the employment of non-UK nationals in civil capacities under the Crown. In place of the current system, the Bill would open up to applicants of any nationality all civil employment under the Crown, apart from such positions as would be rightly restricted to UK nationals—about 5 per cent. of the total—under rules made by the Minister responsible for the Department concerned. Before I talk about the detail, let me make it completely clear that the Bill does not deal with asylum, immigration, work permits or anything like that. It does not affect the requirement for non-UK nationals to get leave to remain and permission to work in the UK.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman said that if the Bill became law, he thought that the number of posts reserved for UK nationals would be 5 per cent., but, if my memory is correct, last time he addressed the House on this issue he said that the figure would be 10 per cent. Will he clarify which figure is correct?

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman will know that I put forward a Bill in 2004 with similar provisions to those in his, albeit in the context of a civil service Bill that would have defined a civil servant and set out the way in which the code would work on a proper statutory basis. Why has he introduced such a spare Bill, rather than going for a more comprehensive measure, given that he says that what a civil servant is must be pretty crucial to the whole process?

Andrew Dismore: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I have never come high on the ballot. The Bill has appeared in various forms and has morphed from a ten-minute Bill to a Bill presented and back again. However, it has never had any priority. I am pleased to be in pole position on a Friday, for once, because that is a record for the Bill. Let us see how we get on.
	During the second world war, defence regulations permitted the temporary employment of aliens if no suitable British subjects were available. Those provisions were replaced by the Aliens' Employment Act 1955, which relaxed the prohibitions so that aliens could be employed if they were either appointed in a country outside the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in a capacity appearing to a Minister to be appropriate for aliens, or employed in accordance with a certificate issued by a Minister with the consent of the Minister for the civil service. For a certificate to be issued, either there must be no suitably qualified UK nationals available to do the work, or the alien must possess exceptional qualifications or experience to do the job. Certificates last for five years and must then be renewed. In 2006-07, only 66 people were employed under those certificates, 37 of whom were in the Ministry of Defence. That compares with 67 in 2005-06 and 57 in 2003-04. The number is thus pretty static and well below 100.
	The European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 amended the 1955 Act to allow nationals of member states of the European Community, and their spouses and certain children, to take up civil employment under the Crown, except for "public service" posts within the meaning of the EC treaty. The rights of nationals of member states of the EC were extended to nationals of member states of the European economic area by section 2(1) of the European Economic Area Act 1993.
	Against the background of a possible legal challenge in the European Court of Justice, further changes were made in 1996 to put Irish and Commonwealth citizens on the same footing as all other non-UK EC nationals. An amendment to the civil service management code was made to restrict Commonwealth and Irish nationals from being employed in posts that were reserved for UK nationals.
	The most recent change was the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 2007. That was in large part to give effect to the St. Andrews agreement of October 2006. The Northern Ireland civil service was disproportionately affected by the prohibition on Irish nationals from applying for reserved posts, which, in the Province, amounted to a quarter of the civil service. In annexe B of the agreement, there was a commitment to:
	"bring forward separate legislation before the end of 2006 to reform entry requirements to ensure access for EU nationals to posts in the Civil Service."
	As we know, that took until 2007, when the order amended the Aliens' Employment Act to define more clearly and restrictively the categories of posts that could be reserved and reduced them to such areas as security and intelligence, defence, diplomatic and Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts, and border control and immigration.
	The order opened up about a further 70,000 posts to Commonwealth, Irish and EEA nationals—in addition to UK nationals, of course—through the reduction in the number of reserved posts to about 5 per cent., or some 27,000 jobs altogether. I think that that is the detailed answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). However, the same basic rules apply. The order has no effect on Commonwealth, Irish and EEA nationals in relation to "public service" reserved posts, although that is probably quite right given that we have reduced the number of such posts to a minimum. However, more importantly, there are restrictions on aliens taking any post in the absence of a certificate under the 1955 Act. There are restrictions on an alien spouse of a UK national, who remains ineligible for appointment to the civil service, but not the alien spouse of an EEA national.
	The effect of the existing rules is that foreign nationals may be employed abroad in any civil post under the Crown, including in the diplomatic service, if a Minister considers that appropriate. However, when we consider civil employment under the Crown in the UK, Commonwealth citizens, British protected persons and nationals of member states of the European economic area can be employed in posts that are not public service reserved ones, while nationals of all other countries may be employed in UK non-reserved posts only if one of the very rarely issued exemption certificates is in force.
	Some 95 per cent. of civil service posts in the UK are thus available to Commonwealth, Irish or EEA nationals. The remaining 5 per cent. of posts that require the special allegiance of public service are entirely reserved for UK nationals, yet other nationals are pretty well entirely excluded from everything, even if there is no good operational reason for doing that. Only posts that are operationally necessary are now reserved under the definition based on the EC treaty.
	Attempts to define public service posts must follow EC case law and are subject to judgments of the European Court of Justice. As a matter of UK law, EU nationals can now be admitted to civil service posts, but they cannot be admitted to ones that the European Court regards as
	"employment in the public service".
	Although the European Court interprets employment in the public service narrowly, it has nevertheless taken the view that officials involved in the collection of taxes, for example, are employed in the public service. As a result, UK law stated that an EU national could not generally be employed in Revenue and Customs because such a post constituted
	"employment in the public service"
	within the meaning of article 39(4) of the EC treaty. The exception from the 1919 Act thus did not apply and a criminal offence was committed if such a person was so employed. However, such people are now generally permitted to be employed in Revenue and Customs because of the effect of the 2007 order.
	Let me try to bring all this complicated law together and summarise it. The net effect is that it is a criminal offence, even if it is done by mistake, to employ an EEA national in a "public service" reserved post. It is also a criminal offence to employ any alien in any civil service post at all, apart from when one of the tiny number of certificated exceptions is in place. While, under freedom of movement provisions, it is legal to employ in a non-reserved post the alien spouse of an EEA national living in the UK, it remains a criminal offence, rather bizarrely, to employ the alien spouse of a UK national without an exemption certificate. While this all sounds very legalistic and technical, I believe the anomalies can best be illustrated by example.
	As I have said, the Bill would not change the rules on asylum and immigration or work permits in any way. My constituency, like many others, has long-standing communities from such places as Iran and Iraq. They mostly comprise highly skilled professionals, many of whom were senior public servants in their home countries before fleeing persecution by those dictatorships as refugees many years ago. If they retain their nationality, they and their children, who might know no other country than the UK, are entirely barred from Government posts. They have a lot to offer, and experience of working in our civil service would stand them and their home countries in good stead if democracy returned to their home countries and they ultimately wanted to go back to contribute to them.
	Hendon has large Israeli, Chinese and Japanese communities. More recently, communities from Afghanistan and Somalia have been established. UK citizens have married people of those nationalities. If such married Israeli, Chinese and Japanese people retained their own citizenship, they would be barred from jobs such as those in the Department of Trade and Industry, or whatever it is now called—the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform—in which their language skills and knowledge of their home countries would be invaluable for promoting UK exports, for example. However, if their spouses were French, not British, they would not be barred from such a post.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. For example, the police service, to which I am sure he is referring, has dealt with that particular issue. The police service is ahead of the game in that respect, as in so many others. I first raised the nationality anomaly in the context of the police regulations many years ago, and the matter was dealt with in the Police Reform Act 2002. Subject to proper immigration status, competence in English, and with certain reservations for sensitive posts, nationality is not a barrier to joining the police, but of course an oath of office applies. That is probably the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. He makes an important point about contractual obligations. Obligations relating to loyalty would apply to any employer, although I fully accept that employment by the Crown has a slightly different status and is in a slightly different category.
	The anomaly is perhaps best illustrated by the case of the notorious Abu Hamza, the fundamentalist. He has UK nationality, at least until the Home Office's efforts to remove his nationality come to fruition, if indeed they ever do. If he was not in jail, he could in theory be employed in any post in the civil service, including the reserved posts. I doubt that he would want to apply, or that he would stand much chance of getting a job, but in theory, every job in the civil service is open to him. However, an American national who is the widow of a British 9/11 victim would be entirely excluded from Government employment. That sort of anomaly is simply not right, and it cannot be allowed to stand.
	In our country, some 780,000 residents of working age are not UK, Commonwealth, or EEA citizens, and are thus excluded from civil service employment entirely. I have the honour to represent a constituency in London, which is a diverse world city, but 330,000 people in London, or 7 per cent. of its working-age population, are entirely excluded, not just from the higher echelons of the civil service, but from even applying for the most junior social security clerk's job. It is no wonder that we have difficulty filling civil service jobs in the capital when so many of my fellow Londoners are entirely out of the equation. In cities such as London, it is important to have a wide diversity of people working in the jobs through which the civil service comes face to face with members of the public, because those members of the public will be from different ethnic backgrounds. Language skills and knowledge of those backgrounds will be very helpful in dealing with the needs and requests of customers, or whatever they are called in the latest civil service jargon.
	My Bill tackles the bizarre and discriminatory anomalies by sweeping away the existing complex, interlocking legislation, and replacing it with a simple amendment to the Act of Settlement, so as not to prohibit the employment of any person in any civil capacity under the Crown. It also empowers Ministers to make rules in respect of nationality requirements for certain categories of posts—that is, posts for which it is clearly necessary, and in the national interest, for the job to be reserved to a UK national. As we discussed earlier, when I started this marathon, it was thought that that was about 10 per cent. of posts. Now it is estimated that only about 5 per cent., or 27,000, civil service posts need be reserved. It is expected that the Bill would open up the remaining 95 per cent. of posts to selection on merit, regardless of the nationality of the applicant, enabling us to build a civil service that reflects the diversity of the society that it serves.
	Over the years, support for my proposals has grown. The civil service trade unions have supported it, and the Public Administration Committee said in its report that it was a "much-needed reform". The Bill has the support of the Commission for Racial Equality and, I think, the official Opposition, who we will hear from soon. I hope that it also has the support of the Liberal Democrats. I believe that the time has come for progress. I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that it will receive its Second Reading today.

Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. When the provisions were put in place, it was assumed as a matter of course that a British UK national would be loyal to the Crown, and that one could rely on that loyalty. That underpinned the measure, and it was not necessary to go beyond that. These days, the civil service management code expressly states that there is a contractual loyalty to the Crown. That requirement is imposed on civil servants, so extra protection is provided by an enforceable duty. It should not be a matter of legal nicety that British citizens should owe a duty to the Crown. After all, this is an important, free, democratic society, and it is a beacon to the world. In the 1980s, when countries to the east were looking to the west, the UK was very much seen as beacon of hope in terms of personal freedom and other freedoms such as economic freedom. One of the best things to have happened in our political lifetime is the fact that countries under the Soviet thrall are now free countries with their own democratic tradition, and are part of the EU. That is a good step forward.
	When I introduced my Civil Service Bill, I wanted to provide an encompassing measure that explained what a civil servant was; that put the civil service code defining the role of the civil servant into law and made it a statutory requirement; and explained the roles of Ministers, civil servants and special advisers more clearly. We still need to do that. The hon. Member for Hendon may say that that is a much broader measure and that he wants to pursue one particular aspect but, in fact, it is all part of the same overall set of issues, which are important to our country. If we are looking at the role of a civil servant and who can be employed in the civil service, it is a bit odd to look at one issue, rather than at the whole picture. Notably, the Public Administration Committee thought that a larger measure was needed, which is why I introduced my Bill.
	Something else that has changed since I introduced my Bill is the fact that the categories of reserved post that can be undertaken only by UK citizens have been altered, and the number of such posts reduced. That is the reason why 95 per cent. of the posts are available more generally, rather than 90 per cent. My late right hon. Friend, Eric Forth, always opposed the hon. Gentleman's Bill, because he thought that if someone wanted to come and live in this country and work in the civil service, they should follow a particular route. He said that foreign nationals desperate to work in the civil service could
	"obtain a legitimate reason to be in this country through work permits or other routes; secondly, seek indefinite leave to remain, which follows naturally on the work permit; and thirdly, and most crucially, seek British nationality...they are very welcome indeed in this country as people with skills and a contribution to make.
	Why are those people apparently unwilling to take those important steps".—[ Official Report, 20 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1228.]
	The Bill would affect those who want to work under the Crown overseas, but in the UK, as the hon. Member for Hendon said, it is unreasonable to say that a citizen of Mozambique can work in the civil service but an American, for example, cannot do so. If an American is married to a British citizen they are not allowed to undertake such work, but someone from Mozambique can do so. Such distinctions applied to equally worthy individuals are very much a case of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Although my late right hon. Friend had a point, if we look at the reality of the Bill, we can see that it offers opportunities that are widely available in the EU and the Commonwealth. To add Americans, for example, to the list of eligible citizens is not a huge change.

Greg Knight: For the sake of accuracy, does my hon. Friend not acknowledge that part of the reason why our late friend, Eric Forth, opposed the Bill had nothing whatsoever to do with its contents? Because it was introduced by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), he took the view that the assassin of many other Bills should have a taste of his own medicine.

David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on yet again having the opportunity to present the measure and on speaking to it in such brief terms—quite out of the usual for his Friday morning contributions, but he covered the ground perfectly adequately and his intentions are clear to all of us.
	I shall refer briefly to the Civil Service Bill mentioned by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). We are still in desperate need of a proper civil service Bill. It is extraordinary that the Government have not yet seen fit to table one. The hon. Gentleman's was a valiant attempt to do so as a private Member's Bill, but the matter needs to be addressed by Government. I hope that the Minister, whom I warmly welcome to her new responsibilities and congratulate on her appointment, and her colleagues in the Cabinet Office will see such a Bill as the first priority for the newly convened Office. I hope that they will recognise the necessity for legislation in the next Session in order to regularise the position of the civil service.

Gillian Merron: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on introducing the Bill. This is his fifth attempt. As hon. Members know, he is something of an expert on private Members' Bills and this Bill is testament to his skill and tenacity.
	It is an honour for me to reply to the debate today—my first morning as the new Minister with responsibility for the civil service—and I thank hon. Members for their kind comments of welcome, which are much appreciated. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden), for his excellent work in this regard, which I know was appreciated both inside and outside the House.
	In the spirit of unanimity that we have found this morning, I am delighted to confirm that the Government support the Bill. It represents some sensible legislative tidying up to bring civil employment under the Crown, and in particular the civil service, in line with other employers, thereby enabling job opportunities to be offered to all who have the right to live and work in this country.

Greg Knight: I, too, congratulate the Minister on her new post. I think I can say on behalf of the Opposition that she will be missed in debates on transport matters.
	When was there last a prosecution under the present law of someone being so employed who should have been so employed?

Gillian Merron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his characteristically generous and warm comments, and I shall be happy to write to him with an answer on that point.
	The rules governing eligibility for employment in the civil service on nationality grounds are complex and time consuming to administer, and as Britain changes as a country they look increasingly out of place. Any country, including our own, will want to put national security at the forefront when considering who is eligible for employment in sensitive posts. But the question before us, and the matter with which the Bill skilfully deals, is whether the rules as they stand on eligibility for employment in the civil service generally give us a system that does this essential task and enables the civil service to draw on the widest possible pool of talent, which is something that I am keen to see.
	Businesses in the United Kingdom economy benefit from the energy, creativity and talent of people of many nationalities who contribute enormously to our economic well-being and national prosperity. The Bill's intention is to ensure that our civil service can do the same, while keeping in place essential protection for posts of a sensitive security or diplomatic nature.
	About 5 per cent. of civil service posts are reserved for UK nationals only. The remaining 95 per cent. of posts are open not just to UK nationals, but to Commonwealth citizens, and to European economic area, Swiss and Turkish nationals and certain of their family members irrespective of their nationality. Other nationals may exceptionally be employed in the civil service only in the very limited circumstances set out in the Aliens' Employment Act 1955; that is, to certain overseas postings, or if granted an alien's certificate in respect of their employment. During 2006-07, only 66 aliens' certificates were in force throughout the civil service. Those arrangements are not consistent with our wish to build a civil service that reflects the society it serves and to attract the best of people.
	In a nutshell, the Bill would give individuals the opportunity, irrespective of their nationality, to be considered for the vast majority of posts in the civil service, and in other posts of employment under the Crown. Appointment would continue to be subject to the existing rules of selection on merit, and the pre-appointment character and security checks undertaken in respect of all new appointees regardless of nationality would continue to apply.
	The House should also be re-assured that there is nothing in this Bill that will change the requirements regarding eligibility to work in the United Kingdom generally. Requisite work permits will still have to be in place and there will be no question of individuals bypassing the immigration process.
	The Bill will still allow certain posts to be reserved for UK nationals by giving to a Minister of the Crown, or to any person or body to whom that power has been delegated by a Minister of the Crown, the power to make rules imposing nationality requirements in respect of certain posts or categories of posts. It is intended that this power will be used only in respect of posts where considerations such as national security, intelligence, border control or diplomatic representation would apply, thereby requiring those posts to be reserved for UK nationals. This is assessed at no more than 5 per cent. of all posts within the civil service.
	As this is a private Member's Bill, section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires a statement of compatibility with convention rights where a Minister of the Crown is in charge of a Bill, does not apply. However, as a matter of good practice, it falls to me to express the Government's views on compatibility. The Bill will relax the current restrictions on eligibility for employment on nationality grounds in the civil service and in other posts of employment under the Crown. In doing so, it will not breach the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.
	Under clause 2, the reservation of certain posts to employees who are UK nationals will be authorised by rules made by a Minister of the Crown or by any person or body to whom that power has been delegated by a Minister of the Crown. The intention is that any such rules will preserve the rights of existing employees, and provision is made for that in clause 2(4). Indeed, any rules would have to comply with the convention under the provisions of the Human Rights Act. On those grounds, the Bill will be compatible with the convention.
	On Queen's consent, I also need to signal that the Bill has been subject to consultation with Her Majesty the Queen, as it has two identifiable impacts on the Crown. The first is the more technical of the two, but it will be of particular interest to this House. It is that the Bill will result in the existing royal prerogative in relation to the fixing of nationality rules under Orders in Council being replaced by a power for a Minister of the Crown to make rules and to delegate that power, as appropriate, to any person or body. In that way, the royal prerogative will be replaced by a power conferred by Parliament.
	The second impact is that, as the Bill will extend to employment in any civil capacity under the Crown, it will also apply to the royal household. Employment in the royal household would therefore be open to people of all nationalities, unless rules similar to those planned for the civil service were put in place. Under the terms of the Bill, it would be possible for any such rules in respect of the royal household to be made by a person or body acting under a delegation from a Minister of the Crown. Accordingly, I can confirm that I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, has kindly consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of debating the Bill.
	I want briefly to refer to some of the points raised by hon. Members in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller)—a very fine constituency represented by a very fine Member of Parliament—raised the issue of the rules to deal with anomalous situations. His contribution was helpful and constructive, and I can tell him that the Bill would remove existing restrictions and anomalies on eligibility for employment in the civil service on nationality grounds. If the Bill is passed, the Government intend any rules made under clause 2 to relate only to the small percentage of posts that will be reserved for UK nationals.

Oliver Heald: I notice that the new Leader of the House is with us. I shadowed her for some time at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and on behalf of the Opposition, may I say that she made a major contribution and that we welcome her to her new responsibilities? I also congratulate her on her victory in the deputy leadership contest for the Labour party—it was a cliffhanger.

Gillian Merron: I concur with all the hon. Gentleman's comments. If I may speak on behalf of the Leader of the House, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon discussed the timetable in respect of Queen's consent. A request was sent to the palace, which allowed ample time for consent to be given. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department kept on top of the matter in order to ensure that we would obtain Queen's consent in time for today, and I am delighted that that has happened.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) asked about allegiance to the Crown. It is a matter of employment under the Crown that a civil servant owes allegiance to the Crown, whatever their nationality.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about the employment status of a Commonwealth citizen whose country leaves the Commonwealth. I am happy to write to him on that important point.
	In conclusion, the changes that the Bill will introduce are deregulatory and will be welcomed by Departments and agencies. The issue of the nationality rules, as they affect employment or holding office in a civil capacity under the Crown, has been the subject of critical correspondence from MPs for many years, and I am glad that the Bill will receive cross-party support today and that the Government support it.

Andrew Dismore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her new appointment and, more importantly, on her support for the Bill. I hope that this is the start of an excellent relationship and that we will take the Bill through Committee, should it find the favour of the House. As nobody has opposed it, I hope that that will be the case.
	The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) asked when the last prosecution for illegal employment took place. I suspect that there has not been one, because the civil service makes the necessary checks to ensure that it does not employ people illegally. I am sure that a permanent secretary would not like to be in the dock for employing somebody who should not have been so employed. I made that particular point to show how serious the restriction is and what would happen if someone were employed unlawfully.
	My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the Bill's compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I was very pleased to hear her say that. The Committee has not scrutinised the Bill yet, but bearing in mind my views about that Act, I would be surprised if the Committee did not endorse the Bill as a measure that enhances human rights rather than simply being compliant.
	I listened to what my hon. Friend had to say about Queen's consent. I know that her Department was hassling the palace, because I was hassling her Department by e-mail and phone. If the difficulties were not in the Department, then presumably they were at the palace.

Andrew Dismore: I assume that that must be the case. Those offices under the Crown are probably distinct from employment in the civil service, which the Bill addresses. Those posts could become reserved positions, if they are important to national security. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that if those posts are not reserved, then they ought to be.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman may be right. That issue might be for the House of Lords were it ever to arise. I sincerely hope that it does not, because it would probably bankrupt the civil service unions. Of course, under my Bill it would not arise, as the hon. Gentleman conceded in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). The avoidance of such arguments is another good reason why the Bill should proceed.
	On the question of why there would be the power to make rules under the Bill, the answer lies in my introductory remarks. Because the current law is so complex and has developed over such a long period with so many amendments and amendments to amendments, we have ended up with an enormous, complicated chain. The Bill would provide the flexibility to change things as and when circumstances may change, without having to go through the whole rigmarole of hoop jumping that has got us where we are today.
	I am pleased that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) indicated support for the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I take his point about the Civil Service Bill, but, as I said, the problem with that was that it was a very big Bill that was not really appropriate for private Members' legislation. If there were to be such a Bill, there is a strong argument for saying that the Government should introduce it. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman's Bill did not progress because it was not really suitable as a private Member's Bill, as I am sure he would privately concede.
	On reserved posts, the number of such posts has fallen primarily as a consequence of the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 2007. If the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire wants to look at the detail, articles 2(6), (7), (8) and (9) set out the extent of the restrictions, which are common-sense restrictions that clearly involve some thought as to what is necessary for operational reasons.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the late Eric Forth's point about the question of nationality. The late Mr. Forth and I used to joust across the Floor of the House on most Fridays. We had mutual respect and, I think, a degree of friendship and acknowledgement of each other's skills in trying to frustrate Bills or, in my case, trying to get them through. I do not think that he tried to get his own Bill through, but he certainly used certain techniques to get his hon. Friends' Bills through. He used to come in on a Friday morning to see the lambs to the slaughter. It was a question of who had had the common sense to try to consult a little beforehand about the tactics that should be involved. We used to enjoy those exchanges and compliment each other. I would take it as a compliment if Eric Forth were trying to frustrate my Bill, and I think he would take it as a compliment that I managed to get as far as Report stage two years ago. Let us see how we get on with this particular measure today and in the next few weeks.
	The substantive point concerned nationality. Of course, it now takes some time to get UK nationality, and rightly—it is not something that should be handed out with the rations or in a box of cornflakes. It is important to recognise that some people may want to keep their own nationality with the long-term object of returning to the home countries from which they fled as refugees. In those circumstances, it would be good for our country to be able to offer them posts in the civil service and to gain their experience of overseas methods of administration. Equally, it would be good for them, should they be able to return to their own countries—on the restoration of democracy, for example—and become re-engaged in their service, to take with them the experience of the British civil service, which I think is the best in the world, and thereby enhance those countries' administration. Leaving aside refugees, we may want to be able to help countries in other parts of the world through mutual secondments and exchanges whereby people are employed in the respective civil services, again to gain that experience for the purposes of spreading good practice. At present, that would be very difficult.
	I think that I have dealt with most of the points raised in the debate. I hope that the Bill will find favour with the House and go into Committee. I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Oliver Heald: I am somewhat surprised to hear my hon. Friend talk about England in those terms. I do not think that I have ever heard a Minister talk about England. They talk about Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the regions. Perhaps there should be sign at Dover that says "Welcome to the regions".

John Pugh: Would it not add enormously to the hon. Gentleman's argument if, in seeking define these strange boroughs of Havering, Tameside or Kirklees, or my own borough of Sefton, it were done in terms of the historic counties, because they are the only names and locales that people can understand and identify from afar?

Andrew Miller: A major discussion is going on about the concepts of city regions and so on. In terms of improving the economic competitiveness of the great towns and cities in the north-west of England, the debate about administration is important. It does not detract, however, from the observations about my county. I cannot, however, claim to match the hon. Member for Romford or the Prime Minister in terms of historic attachments to my county. I guess that I was covered by the previous Bill when I moved to Kettering in 1977, as an incomer. Cheshire is a county with a tremendous history and it has an identity, but there are some quirks in it, such as the artificial boundary—immediately to the north of my constituency—that denotes the metropolitan county of Merseyside. Wirral is a unitary authority on its own, but I guess that under this well-meaning Bill it could easily be redesignated as part of Cheshire, where, in historic terms, it belonged.
	It would be much more difficult to change the boundaries with greater Manchester to the east, and that is why I urge the hon. Gentleman, if the Bill reaches Committee, to take a flexible approach to the practicalities of finding solutions. Not all the history of the area starts in Roman times; in one or two places it starts before, but many of the boundaries reflect post-industrial revolution history. For that reason, a one-size-fits-all solution is not desirable, because it might lead to some quirky results.
	As a statement of principle, the Bill makes eminent sense, but it should be amended to take into account those practical realities. The proposals in the Bill would certainly help the tourist industry. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his attempts to make progress, and I agree that some of the signage that we see can be a little odd. In my county, we are used to seeing bilingual road signs as we approach Wales. I was slightly confused recently when I saw some road signs that I thought were in Welsh, but they were a bit too far east to justify being bilingual. Then I discovered that they were in Polish —[ Interruption. ] Well, when I drive down a lane at 40 mph I am focusing on the road, and it requires greater linguistic skills than I have to distinguish between Polish and Welsh. Signage is confusing and should be simplified. We need to consider the overuse of signage in some communities, although that is not the subject of this Bill.
	The Bill would be helpful in the context of trying to define sensible historic identities and boundaries that the people in the communities recognise as appropriate. I wish the hon. Gentleman well with it, but I am concerned about the regulatory impact, although there may be a solution to that. If he is prepared to add some flexibility in Committee, to ensure that the Bill addresses the practicalities that arise from the historic changes that are not included, I wish it well.

David Heath: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on introducing the Bill. It is perhaps a self-evident point, but the Bill is not about local government re-organisation. Indeed, it is the reverse, because it is about recognising the historic geographical and cultural entities that underpin this country and inform the identities of the people who live here. That is something that successive waves of those who have sought to reorganise local government boundaries have ignored. They have not understood the relevance of identification with a place and community. It does not matter who empties the dustbins, because that is a matter of the efficiency and effectiveness of local government. People are not defined by the authority that collects their rubbish, but by the place in which they grew up and live, which may be where their ancestors lived—although that is not necessarily the case.
	I feel strongly about this issue because I am a man of Somerset. I grew up in Somerset and generations of my family have lived in Somerset. There is a strong possibility that we came a cropper in 1685 because we fought for Somerset against England in the Monmouth rebellion and lost—because the English cheated. There is a huge sense of identity in the county, which was seriously undermined in the early 1970s by the Heseltine reforms of local government. Suddenly, the northern part of an entity that had existed since Saxon times was lopped off and called after the river that runs through Bristol. The new region of Avon never caught the imagination of the people who lived there. As far as they were concerned, they still lived either in north Somerset, south Gloucestershire or the city and county of Bristol.
	Avon was an artificial construct, but the signs went up. We would drive from Bristol to Bath and see a sign saying "Welcome to Somerset" although we had been driving through Somerset for the previous 20 miles. Going the other way, we would see signs saying "Welcome to Avon", although such signs were regularly whitewashed over, because people felt so strongly that they did not live in an area named after a river. People did not use the term "Avon" as their postal address. They were enjoined to do so and told that their address was "Bath, Avon", not "Bath, Somerset". People did not use that address; they carried on using Somerset, because they understood the identity they had grown up with—the county cricket team still played at the recreation ground in Bath, and at Clarence gardens in Weston-super-Mare. They knew perfectly well that they were still Somerset people.
	There was general rejoicing when Avon finally met its end. The one good thing to come out of the Banham review was the abolition of those completely unwanted new council areas. They were replaced by unitaries, not, in our case, by reabsorption into the administrative county of Somerset, but by Bath and North East Somerset council on one side and North Somerset council on the other. At least people had regained some of the identity they shared with the rest of the county.
	Identity matters to people, and when we lose it, we lose something important. In Education and Skills questions yesterday, the hon. Member for Romford asked a question about history, which I followed up with a question about local history. One of the things I notice is that our sense of shared history in a locality is being gradually lost, partly by the exigencies of the national curriculum and partly by the tendency to sweep away previously understood identities. When I take groups of children from Somerset schools around the Palace of Westminster I like to show them things that relate to our history. I show them King Arthur in the Robing Room, King Alfred the great and the scenes from Monmouth's rebellion on the murals in the Corridor between the two Houses; but a little while ago a teacher took me aside and said, "You know, David, all that is very interesting, but they don't know what you're talking about, because they're not taught it." Children are taught about the Romans and the Egyptians.

David Heath: And then the second world war—and the second world war again and again, because it comes up about five times in the history that is taught at present, but children are never taught about the history of their own area. They are never taught about what made us, rightly or wrongly, what we are. Most countries understand that. Scotland understands it. Scotland teaches Scottish history, which is a quite different history from the history of England. In England, however, we have lost that capacity to understand. That is a shame. We are the less for it.
	We talk about diversity in this country and we rightly recognise and celebrate it, but we should also celebrate the diversity within the English. We are an extraordinarily diverse nation in ourselves. I have a very small ethnic minority population in my area; historically it is less than 1 per cent., and by far the greatest majority of that minority is Romany. We are mono-ethnic, or perhaps bi-ethnic, because we are Celts and Saxons, too, which still shows through, or it did until relatively recently. Now we have much more immigration, which is a good thing and I do not argue against it. I am simply saying that having some understanding of the roots of our populations is a good thing, as is recognising the strength of the contributions made in an area.
	The Bill goes a little way towards that. I do not think the hon. Member for Romford would suggest for a moment that it is the answer to everything, but it recognises the fact that sticking up a sign because a cloth-eared bureaucrat thinks it a sensible idea to tell people that they are driving into a particular district council area, so it is important for them to know who collects the rubbish, disguises far more important things, such as where people are in the country. To be perfectly honest with the hon. Gentleman, I worry about some of the practicalities of the Bill; no one wants to see a proliferation of confusing signs. I shall get into terrible trouble with my colleagues on district councils for saying this, but I would be happy if every district council boundary sign was taken away; they do no good to anybody. Nobody actually wants to know about those various entities—district councils that are almost all modern constructs, usually named after a geographical feature that they do not actually represent, such as Mendip, which contains only part of the Mendips, and Sedgemoor, which comprises part of Sedgemoor but not all of it. There are many similar areas. Their names are meaningless both to the people who live in the area and to the people who visit it; they give no meaningful information.

Andrew Dismore: I am glad that my hon. Friend and I did not get into a war of the roses. Anyway, the important point is that Humberside was rejected by everyone who lived in east Yorkshire, and I am pleased to say that it has since been abolished. There was local civil disobedience of the kind that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned as having taken place in Avon. I remember a chap in the town, Trevor Pearson—I think that he is now dead—who ran the campaign. Although the Post Office insisted on "Humberside" being included on the postal address, no one took any notice, and everybody wrote "East Yorkshire". I think that the Post Office had a policy of delaying those letters, although the delays might just have been due to its traditional inefficiencies.
	The old boundaries were very important. They included places such as Stamford Bridge, which was the boundary between east Yorkshire and the rest of the county, going back, I suppose, to the days of King Harold I and the famous battle of Stamford Bridge. The point is that if there are to be boundary signs, it is important that the deep-rooted local feeling in the counties is recognised. As I have said, I now represent an area of London. It was originally part of Middlesex, which is one of the 39 historic counties of England, and it was the second-smallest county after Rutland, so perhaps the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) should tack an extra clause about Middlesex on to his Streetscape and Highways Design Bill.
	When county councils were introduced in England in 1889, part of Middlesex was used to form the county of London, and the remainder formed the administrative county of Middlesex. By 1965, urban London had expanded further, and almost all the original area was incorporated into Greater London, but "Middlesex" is still used informally as an area name, and it is included in some postal addresses; I shall come back to that point later. When talking about historic counties, boundaries, towns and boroughs, the question is how far back we should go. Middlesex was recorded in the Domesday Book. To settle my dispute with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), in the Domesday Book, Middlesex was divided into six hundreds, including the Edmonton hundred, in which Enfield was situated, the Gore hundred, in which Edgware and Hendon were situated, and the Ossulstone hundred, in which Finchley and Friern Barnet were situated. If we go back to 1086, when the Domesday Book was created, we find that I am winning the battle.

Andrew Dismore: I may give the hon. Gentleman a small crumb of comfort later, when we start to look at subsequent developments. He might be slightly satisfied with one or two things that I say about the fringes of Barnet, but I do not doubt that the vast bulk of Barnet was within the boundaries of Middlesex.
	One of the problems with Middlesex was that it did not have an established historic county town. The assizes were at the Old Bailey in the City, and the sessions house was at Clerkenwell green. Although New Brentford was first described as the county town in 1789, which was the first time that knights of the shire were elected to sit in Parliament since 1701, it did not have a town or public hall in which the election could take place, so the position was rather peculiar. Middlesex county council, which took over the quarter sessions in 1889, was based on the other side of Parliament square at the Guildhall, which will become the site of the new supreme court when it is finally constructed.
	There were many market towns, including Edgware in my constituency, but as the county councils were established, new suburbs in north-west London started to grow with the arrival of the railways and the underground in the 19th century. Eventually, district councils were formed, including Hendon urban district council. Barnet was a mixed bag: Finchley was an urban district, but Freirn Barnet was a rural district. It was confusing, and eventually we ended up with the existing boundaries of the London borough of Barnet, which incorporates three earlier boroughs. We have discussed the arms of various places, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on finding out what the arms of Romford are and putting them on badges for schoolchildren. I have looked up the arms of Middlesex. The blazon of the arms—I shall try to get this right—are
	"gules, three seaxes fessewise points the sinister proper, pomels and hilts, and in the centre chief point a Saxon crown or".
	It does not say "or what"; I think that "or" means gold in that context. The Middlesex coat of arms appears on the cricket club colours.
	When Greater London was created, Middlesex started to vanish. However, the word is still used in the names of many organisations based in the area, including the cricket club, which is a first-class county team—unlike Yorkshire, it is not in the first division, although I was pleased to see that Surrey went up to the first division earlier this season—and Middlesex university, which is largely based in my constituency. The university is starting to expand on that site and it, too, uses the traditional coat of arms.
	We have already had a little spat between Hertfordshire and Barnet, and the difficulty of working out where boundaries lie is a problem for the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Romford. Traditionally, rivers were boundaries, but it would be difficult to put a street in the middle of a river. The Thames, the Lea and the Colne were the historic boundaries of Middlesex, and the Middlesex side of the river is still mentioned in commentary on the boat race. We have heard about the postal county. Again, the position is complicated, particularly in Hendon, as part of the constituency has a London postcode and part has an HA postcode, as Harrow was part of the postal county of Middlesex. That creates considerable confusion, as BT, for example, issues phone books for each postcode area. It is difficult for people who want to look up Barnet phone numbers to do so if they live on the Edgware side of my constituency. The council's office numbers do not appear in their phone book, as it lists only Harrow numbers.
	The London borough of Barnet was created as a result of local government reorganisation in 1965. Its historic boundaries include the Edgware road and Watling street, which was a Roman route. The main mediaeval route has since become the A1000, further to the east. There are many other boundaries, too, so may I put to the hon. Gentleman the question of where the signs would go? In parenthesis, I should say that we have our own important local traditions. The Cockney rhyming slang for hair is "barnet", which goes back to Barnet fair of mediaeval times. At the battle of Barnet, Warwick the Kingmaker was killed and the Yorkists, I am pleased to say, defeated the Lancastrians. We have a mapmaking history, too, and Hendon school is built on the site of the house of John Norden, the 16th-century mapmaker. He would recognise the old boundaries, but not, obviously, the new ones. The hon. Gentleman must answer the question of where the boundary signs would go, bearing in mind those historic distinctions. In London there are distinctive areas such as Hampstead garden suburb, which would see itself as a separate location.
	My main concern is not the theory or idea behind the Bill. It is important to remind people of our local history. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, unfortunately schools these days do not teach local history. In my view, they do not teach enough of our nation's history, either. I hope that sooner or later people will come to recognise the importance of that. It is a unifying factor and part of our identity, locally as well as nationally.
	My main concern with the Bill is that it is mandatory. It states:
	"A traffic authority must take such steps as they consider reasonable".
	There is a strong argument, perhaps less so in rural areas, that that will create more street clutter. We have far too many street signs already in urban areas. Adding more will create confusion and may be a road safety hazard as people try and work out why a particular sign is there.
	One of the Bill's strengths is that is does not try to define what is an historic area, but it leaves that to designation, presumably by a statutory instrument. That would create a huge bureaucracy between local and central Government as people try and decide what is to be designated, for the purposes of the Bill, an historic county town or village boundary. That would potentially entail some cost, and putting up the signs will undoubtedly involve cost. I remember the outcry in my borough at the cost involved when the incoming Conservative administration five years ago decided to change all the street signs to a bluish colour—I wonder why. If signs are put up as a result of the Bill, there may be concerns about the burden on the council tax payer.
	The hon. Member for Romford has done the House a service by bringing his Bill before it today. He has raised some important issues about local and national identity, but I hope that when he replies to the debate, he can answer some of the practical difficulties in terms of cost, road safety and clutter, and in particular the mandatory nature of his Bill.

Robert Goodwill: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I commiserate with him on the fact that he has had to emigrate from God's own county down to Hendon. He can rest assured that the Opposition will be working very hard to ensure that following the next election, he will have an opportunity to return to those broad acres.
	I am pleased that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has reached Second Reading. It started life as a ten-minute Bill, and such Bills sometimes sink without trace, but it is probably a measure of the importance of its subject matter around the country that the Bill has got this far.
	I make no apologies for coming from Yorkshire. They say one should never ask anyone if they are from Yorkshire, because if they are, they will say so in the first five minutes, and if they are not, why humiliate them unnecessarily? Yorkshire has a proud tradition. We have our own flag, with the white rose, our own pudding, our own newspaper, the  Yorkshire Post, and now our own regiment, and there are more acres in Yorkshire than there are words in the Bible. Of all the counties in the country, Yorkshire people can be the most proud of their heritage. That is why it is important that there should be signs marking historic county boundaries so that people can be aware of that.
	Yorkshire is split into three ridings—the North Riding, the East Riding and the West Riding. Contrary to some popular opinion in the south of England, there is no south riding, except in literature. Within Yorkshire there is tremendous rivalry between the ridings. In my constituency, in Scarborough, people who come on holiday from the West Riding are commonly known as wezzies. They are looked down upon as second class citizens by the people in north Yorkshire. That feeling is reciprocated, but it is a positive and beneficial rivalry from which everybody gains.
	It is said that one can always tell a Yorkshireman, but one cannot tell him much. Telling a Yorkshireman that he lived in Cleveland or Humberside did not go down well. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that people in Somerset did not like being told that they lived in Avon. A similar situation occurred in my part of the world, particularly in Humberside, where signs were not just whitewashed over but physically removed by Yorkshiremen who regretted having that name attached to the county that they loved.
	When I went up to Cleveland—which as I mentioned was for the purposes of cricket—south of the river, always in Yorkshire, there were big signs declaring Cleveland to be a nuclear-free zone. That always tickled me because not only does Cleveland have a very good radiological unit at its hospital, but in Hartlepool a nuclear power station. Such signs turned people off the new regions. If the Bill is enacted, the traditional county boundaries will be recognised. People like to feel a sense of identity and they do not identify with Humberside or Cleveland, but they do identify with Yorkshire, and that gives them a real sense of belonging.
	People in Whitby, recently voted by the readers of  Saga Magazine as the No. 1 weekend holiday destination, feel a certain resentment because they live in Scarborough borough council, and they make representations to me that they would like to live in Scarborough and—no, correction—they would like to live in Whitby and Scarborough borough council. But one thing that we can all agree on is that we live in Yorkshire.
	In many ways we are in danger of losing our history and heritage by these new county names, such as Kirklees and Calderdale. The people who live there know where they live because it appears on their council tax bills, and they are one thing that people in west Yorkshire do know about. The Bill allows us to claw a little of that history and heritage back.
	One of the most tragic cases is in the west of my county where a small number of people find themselves, for administrative purposes, in Lancashire. Can anyone imagine anything worse for a Yorkshireman than being told that he now lives in Lancashire? That is part of the way in which our heritage is being eroded. Restoring the signs would be a good thing.
	I am saddened by the loss of many traditional field names. The Bill does not extend to labelling every field, but as farms change hands many of the traditional field names that go back to mediaeval times have been lost. On my farm, where we have been since 1850, we try hard to retain the traditional field names. That is another example of where history can be lost because of changes.
	It is a little much to expect new immigrants to this country—people from Pakistan and India, and more recently from Poland—to support the English football team in the World cup or the English cricket team when it is playing Pakistan, or Poland in a World cup match. But it is quite realistic to expect them to identify with the regions in which they live. There is no reason why Polish people who come to the UK—I have many in my constituency—should not feel proud to live in Yorkshire, and signs will tell them exactly where they live. These people have not been taught about English history and this may be an answer to that problem. The Tebbit question was which cricket team do such people support. Many people who have come from India or Pakistan to west Yorkshire will support their own country's cricket team, and I am pleased that they do, but they can also support the Yorkshire cricket team, not least because we have players such as Sachin Tendulkar, who played for Yorkshire with such prowess. So the answer to the Tebbit question may be to have more emphasis and stress on our traditional county boundaries and market towns, so that people can feel a sense of belonging, albeit that they have lived in the country for only a short time.
	I represented Yorkshire in the European Parliament for five years, but it was not just Yorkshire, it was Yorkshire and the Humber. People in the north of Lincolnshire resent that—the part of the world that the Minister represents. If I could digress for one second, I would like to thank the Minister for the decriminalisation of the parking scheme in Scarborough and Whitby, on which we have had much correspondence and which I have raised on a number of occasions.
	People who live in north Lincolnshire resent the fact that from an administrative point of view they are now in the Yorkshire and the Humber region. They thought that they had got rid of Humberside, but the region is still referred to as Yorkshire and the Humber.
	Our regional development agency, Yorkshire Forward, represents not only Yorkshire but north Lincolnshire. One councillor from north Lincolnshire told me, "As far as we are concerned, it is Yorkshire Forward and Lincolnshire backwards."  [ Interruption. ] A Conservative councillor mentioned that to me. Informing people when they cross the Humber bridge that they are entering Lincolnshire is much more relevant than informing people who live in Grimsby, Cleethorpes or Scunthorpe that they live in Yorkshire and the Humber—"the Humber" is tacked on to "Yorkshire".
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) raised the problem of postcodes, which is especially relevant to people in the north of north Yorkshire, who have TS postcodes. I am not sure whether they are concerned because of their pride in Yorkshire and their desire to have a YO postcode or because their insurance premiums are higher because people think that they live on Teesside. I guess that the same point applies to people who live in Cheshire, but who have Merseyside postcodes. We should examine aligning our postcodes with our traditional county boundaries.
	I support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and hope that it ends up on the statute book. In years to come, when people enter Yorkshire I hope that they will be proud to see a sign letting them know that they are doing so. I can think of only one downside to the Bill—although we will have signs for people entering Yorkshire giving them the good news that they are entering God's own county, we will have to give people heading in the opposite direction the devastating news that they are leaving Yorkshire.

Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate today, in which we heard from the ancient counties of England. That has been a very pleasant experience, recalling the great history of our nation. Hon. Members will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for introducing the Bill. The subject has previously been aired by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who has also attempted to get such a measure through the House. There was a good deal of support around the House for the principle behind the Bill, although important matters of detail were contested.
	The Association of British Counties has been the inspiration for this measure. Its contention is that the counties are an important part of the history, geography and cultural life of our country. It argues that Britain needs a fixed popular geography that is divorced from the ever-changing names and areas of local government. It wants us to have a real sense of history over time, and roots that people commonly understand and that are held to be part of our cultural identity. The point has been made that the fact that we are debating this matter today is excellent timing, given that we are having a national debate on identity and cohesion at the moment.
	The issue of postcodes and postal names was raised by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). In my own county of Hertfordshire, we have acquired areas of Cambridgeshire for postal purposes. People in Melbourn, which is in Cambridgeshire, are not at all happy to have a Hertfordshire postcode or to have Hertfordshire as part of their postal address, because they do not live in Hertfordshire. There is also a commercial aspect to this issue, because Cambridgeshire is well recognised as a centre for information technology, and people with IT businesses in Melbourn, Cambridgeshire, find it quite commercially damaging to have to describe themselves as being in Hertfordshire.
	Having said that, Hertfordshire is of course a fantastic county with an ancient history. I had an interesting discussion earlier with the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about exactly where its ancient borders were. I was in Southgate recently, and I was told that it was originally the south gate of the Enfield chase and traditionally part of Hertfordshire. Indeed, one of the people I spoke to there was Hertfordshire through and through, having a family that was originally based in my constituency and that had moved south to that location. The former Member for Chipping Barnet, Sir Sydney Chapman, was always an honorary Hertfordshire MP as far as the Conservative party was concerned, and he was proud that his area had a Hertfordshire tradition, although he was happy to be a Londoner too. These are important matters, and we should not minimise them in any way.
	The Bill would compel traffic authorities to
	"cause traffic signs to be placed on or near roads for the purpose of indicating the location of historic county, town or village boundaries",
	to try to re-establish the identity of traditional counties. During the debate, an argument developed about the form of those signs. There is a case for trying to highlight some of the points about an area on a sign. Under the regulations that would be used, Ministers would have powers to designate the sort of information that a sign could display. If people wanted more descriptive signs, such as those used in France, where the presence of fruit growing, a good wine area or a special cathedral is often reflected on signs, that might be possible. That would give our road signs a little more character and better meet the needs of the public and for education.
	We heard a good deal about Yorkshire, which is a fine county. I rather shared the sense of sadness that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) portrayed of the Yorkshireman leaving his county. He highlighted that such signs would bring a tear to his eye. The signs that said, "Welcome to Yorkshire", however, would lift him to a new level of happiness and give him a great thrill, as would be the case with almost any Yorkshireman. He did not say whether the signs should have a bat and ball on them or some other sporting sign, but he did mention Geoffrey Boycott, a great Yorkshireman. I once played at Headingley, and managed to hit the old pavilion roof, and Geoffrey Boycott was there. That was one of the great moments of my sporting life, although it was only a very amateur match.
	The Bill's frame of reference is provided by the traditional county boundaries, defined with respect to counties set out in the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844. In many instances, those bear little relationship to the current, amorphous local government administrative areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge made that point about his county of Middlesex, which has a proud tradition, with its great guildhall near the House of Commons, and its rural areas, some of which are perhaps not as rural as they once were—he referred to Cowley in that context. None the less, there is a pride in the county of Middlesex, as we understood from his point about the candidate who described it as being in west London, to the absolute horror of the local media. He did not even have to prompt them to run a campaign that lasted for some weeks.

Andrew Miller: There are some extremely well-researched websites with good sources of information about historic boundaries. The Ordnance Survey, on the other hand, should have a forward-looking approach to its work. We should commend it on that work, which includes engagement with schoolchildren, but ancient boundaries are better covered in the information available on the web.

Gillian Merron: Perhaps it would be helpful if I confirmed to the hon. Gentleman that existing regulations already allow the addition of crests, coats of arms and items of geographical or historical interest—perhaps even in the style of "Market Town of Romford", which may please the hon. Member for Romford. Hon. Members should consider the existing regulations before going down another road—if I can use that expression—which might not be helpful.
	Traffic signs must either conform to The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, which specify the appearance and meaning of traffic signs, or be especially authorised by the Secretary of State. Decisions on what restrictions should be applied and signed, and where, are a matter for local discretion. Decisions about the placing of information signs at particular locations are the responsibility of the relevant traffic and highway authority. The only specific statutory requirement for local authorities to place traffic signs is that they must provide signs that are adequate to indicate the provisions of their local traffic regulation orders, so that drivers will not unwittingly contravene local traffic regulations and be unfairly penalised for doing so—a concern that hon. Members often raise on behalf of their constituents.
	To blur the edges with additional, historic boundary signs would bring the risk of confusing road users, thereby defeating the primary purpose for which the signs are prescribed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who are supporting him will bear that in mind when thinking about how to respond. Traffic signs are not provided for commemorative purposes, nor should they be. They are used to guide and control traffic and to promote road safety. They should be used only where they can usefully serve these functions.

David Heath: I most grateful for that definition of the utility of traffic signs, but what is the utility of district council signs that welcome people to some administrative area that does not relate to any historical or cultural entity?

Oliver Heald: The Minister, and voices from all parts of the House, mentioned the importance of history, and said that the matters before us are important, but expressed concerns about the detail. Does my hon. Friend agree that surely what should happen next is that amendments should be put forward and discussed in Committee? Surely there is no real excuse for voting against the Bill.

Fewer than 40 Members having taken part in the Division,  Mr. Deputy Speaker  declared that the business under consideration stood over until the next  s itting of the House.

David Gauke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am speaking in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who originally put down his name for this Bill, which originated in the House of Lords. Given his concentration on foreign affairs, however, I have agreed to step into his place.
	The Bill would establish a publicly searchable website containing information about expenditure by all Departments and Executive agencies. The idea is not entirely original: the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act was passed in the US in 2006 with bipartisan support, including that of Senator Barack Obama and other leading notables. In the US, any federal expenditure over the value of $25,000 must be recorded and the details must be made available on a website that is accessible by anybody.
	The first reason why I want to introduce such a website into the UK involves transparency. Where money is spent in the name of the public, it is right in principle that the public should be able to discover what that money has been spent on. That is an entirely sensible principle that should always stand. We should also be aware of evolving public expectations. Debate has raged in this House on recent Fridays about exemptions to freedom of information legislation for matters relating to this House. I have no intention of getting into that particular debate, but I have been struck by the way in which that particular issue has excited the public imagination. Strong feelings have been provoked, because the public increasingly have high expectations about what information should be available to them. There is a concern about secrecy and concealment, and there is a higher expectation that information will be provided.
	Our media are evolving, and they are no longer concentrated in the hands of the few—in some respects, they are in the hands of the many—because of the development of the internet. We have seen the rise of bloggers. At the last US presidential election, for example, individuals with expertise in particular areas were able to participate—who would have thought that knowledge of typewriters used in 1970s army bases would be significant? Amateurs—I do not use the term in a pejorative sense—can engage through new technology in important public debates, but in order to do so they need information.
	What better way of providing information is there than putting the details of public expenditure on to a single website, where people can study it and follow the money to see how Government spending is done? That is important not only in terms of transparency, but for the practical reason that we can use the public as a whole to scrutinise public expenditure. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee do a splendid job, but we can in a sense conscript the general public to hold the Government to account by scrutinising expenditure on a website.
	That brings me to the second reason why the Bill should be allowed to progress—it could enable us to achieve greater value for money. At this point, I am tempted to read out a whole list of areas of Government expenditure that seems absurd—a bumper book of Government waste. Although I could do that, I do not want to introduce a partisan point, because such waste will apply to any Government. There is always a way in which public money could be spent more wisely. The more we can scrutinise that, the better, and the less likely we are to have waste. I would argue that there is perhaps more waste at the moment than there should be, but I would rather not get into that; I would prefer to say that the more we scrutinise, the more we can achieve value for money for the taxpayer. The Government spend an enormous amount of money on our behalf—more than £500 billion last year, and it is continuing to rise. It has risen in absolute terms and has risen considerably as a percentage of gross domestic product. The need to scrutinise the value for money that our Government achieve becomes greater as time goes on. The Bill would give the general public, as well as journalists and politicians—it would certainly be useful for MPs—the tools with which to do that.
	Let me briefly outline the Bill's provisions. Clause 1 goes to the heart of the matter—it would require the Treasury to create a Government expenditure website. Clause 2 would give the Government the power to extend that to other public sector bodies, not only Government agencies but any other element within the public sector that receives funds directly or indirectly from a Government Department or Executive agency. Clause 3 would give the Treasury powers to determine content and availability. It would not be appropriate for the Bill to deal with every single detail; it is helpful to set up the framework and then let the details be dealt with by statutory instrument.
	Clause 4 provides some important and practical exemptions. Clearly, we would not want to detail expenditure in areas where it would in any way damage national security, the effectiveness of our armed forces, or relations with other states or with international organisations or courts. Clause 5 deals with another practical difficulty with regard to data protection. It provides an exemption in view of the fact that some information would infringe other people's data rights. Clause 6 would give the Information Commissioner the power to examine the Government's compliance with the objectives set out in the Bill.

Andrew Miller: In respect of clause 5, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his intention to exempt, for example, any payments that might be made to a person in respect of an industrial injury, which would not necessarily be an appropriate thing to put into the public domain? Indeed, as he no doubt knows, it sometimes enhances the capacity of the two parties—employer and employee—to reach a solution if the matter is kept private.

Andrew Miller: Let me try to help put the US comparison into perspective. The hon. Gentleman said that the federal Administration, not the state Administrations incurred the cost. Does he know roughly how many transactions are involved in the $15 million expenditure?

Robert Goodwill: Is my hon. Friend aware that large-scale trawls have taken place when a request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and that, for example, health trusts had to provide much information, which proved expensive and distracted them from their work?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We can ask parliamentary questions and make FOI requests. The general public can do the latter, too. However, that can be time consuming for those seeking and those providing the information. It would be better if that process could be more systematic. Let me revert to the US example, which may be of interest to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller).
	In the US, there is a de minimis requirement that the information is provided if the transaction is greater than $25,000. The Bill would permit a similar provision, which would rule out some of the silly and trivial matters that would cause disproportionate difficulties, while allowing the larger ones to be addressed.
	Concern has been expressed about revealing improper information. There are provisions in the Bill to protect personal data and to ensure that national security, our armed forces and our relations with overseas Governments and institutions are protected. That is only right. Given that this is an enabling Bill, there is scope for greater provision for the Treasury to identify particular areas of concern.
	This is an important Bill that deserves further consideration. We are living in a time when the public expect to have information and to be able to scrutinise what the Government, of whatever party, are doing. We are living in a world of greater openness and transparency in which more people can participate in the public debate because of the evolution of technology, which is to be welcomed. We are also living in a world in which Government expenditure is considerable. If we wish to enable the public to participate in debates on value for money, and if we want greater scrutiny and greater value for money in public expenditure, the Bill would provide a useful tool for ourselves and the public. It would benefit this country for the Government to have a website setting out their expenditure.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) is presenting an intriguing idea, and I can certainly see the merits of some aspects of his argument. He is right to say that the nature of the media and of the world that we live in is changing. We now live in a world of blogs and of instant camera shots from so-called newsworthy scenes.
	A few months ago, I was privileged to participate in a seminar at St. George's house at Windsor castle, under the chairmanship of Sir David Brown, the chairman of Motorola, entitled "The media in a seamless, mobile age". Some of the issues that we discussed impinge on what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. The nature of the relationship between the media and the Government, and between the media and the people, has changed. The media have become an immensely more powerful tool. Individuals, through blogs, have become their own publishing houses and can portray information in any way that they choose, and it is sometimes a misleading and inaccurate way. Some of us might accuse  The Mail on Sunday of doing that on a regular basis.
	There is an argument that the more transparent the Government machinery becomes, the more difficult it is for misinformation to be the order of the day. I
	accept that point. I have some difficulty, however, with the hon. Gentleman's evidence about the cost of the provision. I was trying to do some mental arithmetic on the number of transactions in the Government and their agencies that would be in excess of a certain figure. If we use the American de minimis provision of $25,000 and round it up and call it £15,000, for the sake of argument, that would result in a huge number of transactions. I suspect—I am open to correction when my hon. Friend the Minister replies—that that is not comparing apples with apples. The federal Administration in the United States undertakes a lot of detailed expenditure in areas of direct federal responsibility, such as defence. That would involve a huge number of figures, but a lot of that would be outwith the scope of the Bill.
	If we analyse the number of direct transactions for which the House takes responsibility, because of our different structure I suspect we will find that the hon. Gentleman's comparison with the United States is not reasonable. For $15 million, we will not get the kind of tool that he wants. The big cost is not the establishment of the tool but the data flows into it. That could only be made feasible through a great deal more integration between operating systems in Government Departments, whereby information from different systems could be integrated at the press of a button.
	That would take a leap of faith on the part of Opposition parties, all of which have expressed concern, reservations and opposition to the centralising of data as envisaged in the transformational government White Paper. When the concepts described in the transformational government White Paper bear fruit, the kind of change that the hon. Gentleman suggests would be feasible, and would have a lower impact on the public purse. If, however, somebody offered him a choice between spending £10 million in his constituency or spending it on setting up a central Government website, I know that, as I would, he would regard a brand new hospital, new schools, new roads or more policeman for his constituency as a higher priority.
	If the Opposition are serious about helping such transparency to come about, we need them to come on board with the philosophy behind the transformational government White Paper, so that sensible data sharing can take place, with the kind of protections that he rightly describes. In that regard, the role of the Information Commissioner is mission-critical. He may have seen some articles I wrote about that in  The House  Magazine some months ago . It is possible to create the kind of mechanisms in which the public would have confidence, which would allow data sharing, and which would in turn make his approach perfectly feasible. But I caution the House about leaping into that as a separate, one-off project in isolation. In practice, the cost would be considerably more than £15 million.
	I am a fan of transparency—I have always said that if people want to see my office accounts, they are welcome to do so. I have even said that to candidates who have stood against me. We, as public servants, ought to be transparent, and Government Departments should also be transparent. There is nothing wrong in principle with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, he should persuade his colleagues to take a more forward-looking approach to those things that are fundamental
	to the changes that reflect the world in which we live—a world that has to deal with instant responses in blogs and so on.
	People expect Governments to change accordingly. Like me, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt receive dozens of e-mails from constituents who think that because they can press a button and send a message instantly, we have the capacity to reciprocate instantly. I am sure that, as a matter of course, he prioritises his responses based on his constituents' needs rather than their ability to communicate rapidly.
	We must think the proposal through carefully. I would support the hon. Gentleman in keeping pressure on Her Majesty's Government to improve transparency, but I urge the Opposition to think about my remarks. The hon. Gentleman set out a powerful case for why, if we are to have better governance and more transparency, there is a need to use IT sensibly so that costs are driven down. We do not want a separate system bolted on the end because that would drive costs up, and by considerably more than £15 million in my judgment.

David Heath: I am pleased that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) was here to move the Second Reading of the Bill. I understand why the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) was unable to be present.
	The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire espoused the important principle of transparency, which would make the affairs of the Government and information on the use of public money more available to the taxpayer. The Bill builds on a strong feeling that many of us have, which is that the House is not at all good at scrutinising Government expenditure. The apparatus of the House almost militates against it. We have a myth called estimates day. It is a myth because it is supposed to be the day when we look at what the Government are spending, but we do nothing of the kind. We use it as an excuse for a useful debate on a subject of choice, but we do not examine Government expenditure in any realistic way. The level of scrutiny right through the system is riddled with inconsistencies. There is a lack of information, which is what the Bill is about, and a lack of rigour in applying scrutiny.
	We have the National Audit Office, and it does an excellent job, as does the Public Accounts Committee. In many ways, however, our colleagues on the PAC merely scratch the surface of Government expenditure. They look at specific topics that have come to the notice or interest of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the NAO. They scrutinise those in depth and produce interesting points for discussion and lessons to be learned on the part of the Government. The great merit of the Bill is that it would open up that information to anyone who wished to access it so that they could ask the relevant question and do the relevant sums. It is not the Government's money; it is our money, because it derives from the taxpayer. People should be able to ask why it is being used in a particular way.
	When I was involved in local government, one of the great arguments was whether we could have zero-based budgeting and whether it would be a good idea to build up a budget each year from zero, rather than making
	incremental changes. There is obvious merit in zero-based budgeting, but it is also extraordinarily difficult to do and, in terms of national expenditure, probably impossible. One of the substitutes is complete transparency about what is being done.
	I see the Bill as one of a series of potential reforms, some of which would be of this House. As I have said, I would like to see estimates days and our scrutiny of the comprehensive spending review much better organised and more focused. We should have specialist resources available to Members and those outside—it has been described as the "Office of the Taxpayer"—so that similar resources are available to those scrutinising the Treasury as there are to the Treasury itself. That would enable better scrutiny of the figures on the proposed website, so that Members could better do the job that our constituents assume we do in scrutinising Government expenditure. If we had such a resource to advise individual Members and Select Committees, they could do their job that much better.
	Other simple procedural changes could see evidence-taking sessions on the Finance Bill, as other public Bills now have, with the benefit—if this Bill goes through—of serious information about Government expenditure. We would then be able to ask the questions that should be asked in the context of the Government's expenditure and taxation plans.
	There is a raft of reform that would greatly improve our scrutiny of Government spending. The Bill would be a starting point by putting information that is, obviously, known to the Government in the public domain in a much more effective way. However, I have some concerns about the Bill. For example, I am worried about some of the categories of exempt information. I especially note that information could be exempt if it were likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any other state, international organisation or international court, because we have heard that one before. If we had a Department of State, say the Ministry of Defence, paying large amounts of money to a dignitary of another state, say a Foreign or Defence Minister of a state in the middle east, it would be wise to put the spotlight of publicity on it, so that we could assess whether it was corrupt behaviour or not.

Robert Goodwill: I shall be as brief as I can, because I know that the Minister does not want the passage of this important Bill to be held up. I note that she volunteered to be Minister for Fridays because she enjoys them so much.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) on the cogent and logical way in which he presented the case for the Bill. There can be no doubt that the people of our country cherish the freedom of information that they have been given already—we need only consider the outrage that was felt when it was suggested that Members of Parliament might withdraw information that had previously been available. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) referred to his office expenses, but surely knowing what is being spent in our education system and health service is every bit as important as knowing how many paperclips the hon. Gentleman has bought for his office. That is why the Bill is so important.
	One of the problems we face is that the Freedom of Information Act is so often honoured in the breach rather than in the observance. The UK is a big company, and companies present accounts to their shareholders in great detail. UK plc turns over £523.4 billion, so people have a right to know what the money is spent on. It is difficult for members of the public and Members of Parliament to operate within the FOA because they do not always know which questions to ask—as Donald Rumsfeld said, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. I am sure the Department of Health and the Treasury hope that many questions will not be asked because the answers might be embarrassing. I0f we had known beforehand which questions to ask about the release of foreign prisoners, for example, we could have put information about the problems into the public domain.
	How often are we told in answer to a parliamentary question that the cost of supplying the requested information is prohibitive? If the Government put the information on the web, we or journalists could do the hard work.

Gillian Merron: I thank the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) for his courteous and kind words about my new position, and for standing in for his colleague, the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I am sure the hon. Gentleman is most appreciative. I, too, am standing in for a colleague who is well respected in the House and who will do a tremendous job in this role—whoever they are.
	The Government have made great strides in openness and transparency in many areas, as we have in promoting value for money, especially in respect of public expenditure. The Government do not support the Bill, not because we have any objections to its apparent aims, but because it is unnecessary and because the burden and costs that it would impose have not been adequately considered. I will elaborate on those points.
	The Bill is unnecessary because a huge amount of public spending data is already made publicly available. For example, the Treasury's public website already contains a great deal of information on public spending. There are copies of the central Government supply estimates for a five-year period, which contain detailed departmental spending plans for particular financial years. There are copies of public expenditure statistical analyses going back to 1999-2000, in which the data are broken down in a variety of ways, including by departmental groups, central and local government, public corporations, country and region, and function. There are copies of the Budget and pre-Budget reports going back to 1998. There is detailed information on Treasury spending controls,
	including past and forthcoming spending reviews that set budgetary limits on spending by Departments, and there is a public sector finances databank, which is updated monthly and contains runs of data for various aspects of expenditure and finance. That list of available information is quite weighty, but it is by no means exhaustive. It simply gives a flavour of the large amount of public expenditure information that is already available on the Treasury's public website.
	In addition, the websites of other Departments provide a variety of financial information, whether in the form of departmental reports, audited departmental accounts or spending information relating to non-departmental public bodies or Executive agencies. Audited resource accounts for Departments provide the most comprehensive and accurate information on actual expenditure outturn. The Government have made strides to speed up the provision of such information. The faster closing of resource accounts requires those accounts to be presented to Parliament before the summer recess, which I hope the House will welcome. Importantly, departmental reports also provide information regarding public service agreements, to show not only how much we spend, but what we are achieving with the resources. Most public spending data currently made available relate to full financial years—whether outturn or plans.
	What is most important is that detailed, accurate and independently audited information about public spending is made available as soon as it is reasonable to do so. Work is already under way in the Treasury to expand further the quantity of expenditure information on the public website, as well as to restructure the information to make it easier to navigate and search. That means that the public website will also hold detailed background and guidance material relating to public spending issues. I hope that hon. Members welcome that development.
	A great deal of public spending data, broken down in many ways, is already freely available, but the Bill is unnecessary for a second reason, which is that any interested parties are able, if necessary, to seek further information under the Freedom of Information Act, which the Government introduced in 2000. The Act is part of the Government's drive towards more open and accountable government. It creates a statutory right of access to Government information, subject of course to the necessary exemptions and safeguards, which strike an appropriate balance between openness and the ability of public bodies to conduct their business efficiently and effectively. The Act is an important and powerful tool and any public expenditure information not already published—a considerable amount is published—could be sought under its provisions. Any refusals of such requests must be properly justified and are subject to scrutiny by the Information Commissioner.
	A further concern about the Bill relates to the potential for relatively poor-quality data to appear under the planned process. When the issue was discussed in another place it was stated:
	"If information is captured within 30 days of expenditure, it should be capable of being accessed via a website. It does not need to be intermediated through some Treasury information system".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 2007; Vol. 688, c. 1402.]
	That is all well and good, but the quality of data is vital, not least to a consistent approach. Financial information that has been audited, or scrutinised and validated centrally by the Treasury, is surely of greater value in the long term.
	As I have said, the burden of cost that the Bill would impose has not been adequately considered. When the matter was discussed in another place, it was stated that the expected cost of the Bill would be £2 million in the first year and £7.5 million over four years. It was acknowledged that such costs were based on estimates produced by the US Congressional Budget Office of the cost of implementing not dissimilar legislation in the US by 2008. The US estimate suggested that it would cost $15 million to set up and maintain such a website over the first five years.

Brooks Newmark: I am pleased to have secured an Adjournment debate on the important subject of tackling racism in universities, in particular on the proposed University and College Unions' boycott of Israeli academics, although I am disappointed that in this day and age the issue should need to be debated at all. There is no place for racism anywhere in British society, but it is a particular affront to that society that any racism should persist in our universities.
	This subject is hedged in by considerable complexity, not least caused by the need to protect academic freedoms from the clunking fist of Government. Nevertheless, the volume of legislation available to prevent racism on university campuses is considerable. The Race Relations Act 1976 obliges higher education institutions to promote race equality and good relations between different racial groups. The Public Order Act 1986 made incitement to racial hatred a crime, and that provision was buttressed in 2001, and again by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. To those we can add the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which introduced racially aggravated offences, and the Equality Act 2006, to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief. If I have missed out any law, I hope that the Minister will correct my omission when he replies.
	However, I question whether that superabundance of legislation has borne any fruit. In fact, it may well be something of a hindrance to universities seeking to form policies to tackle racism. From prodigal law it is an easy step to profligate guidance. In November, for example, the Minister issued guidance on how universities should promote good campus relations and tackle violent Islamic extremism. I hope that when he replies, he will be able to update the House on the reception of that guidance by the academic community and outline any further steps that he proposes to take with regard to monitoring the growth of Islamic extremism on our campuses.
	Islamic extremism is just one facet of the threat that racism poses to university life. Another, and one that has captured the headlines in recent weeks, as well as providing the catalyst for this debate, is anti-Semitism in British universities. I feel obliged to say that it has captured the headlines for all the wrong reasons. At the end of March the Government responded to the report of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-Semitism. I pay tribute to all the members of the group that produced that report. They have focused attention on an increasingly worrying issue.
	Unfortunately, there have been few if any headlines that focus on the report's concern that police forces are not comprehensively and consistently tackling anti-Semitic incidents; that the Crown Prosecution Service undertakes few prosecutions for racially motivated offences; or that the Home Office does not seem to have conducted dedicated research into the prevalence of anti-Semitism. The headlines have instead focused on the decision by the University and College Union to allow its members to discuss proposals for a boycott of Israeli academics. That shift in focus is unfortunate, because the all-party parliamentary group's report devoted an entire chapter to the rise of anti-Semitism on university campuses. Anti-Semitism is a serious and growing concern for Jewish students.
	As the Union of Jewish Students told the all-party parliamentary group's inquiry:
	"Jewish students have become increasingly alarmed by virulent and unbalanced attacks on the state of Israel, and the failure of student bodies and organisations to clearly and forcefully condemn anti-Semitism when it occurs."
	The UCU's stance on a potential boycott of Israeli academics is the crowning failure of responsible leadership. I agree with the principle that university governance is, rightly, independent of the Government, but there is also the principle that academic freedom rests on a compact in which society chooses not to intrude on universities, and universities in turn do not seek to carry out a foreign policy. The proposed UCU boycott undermines that very principle. Tony Blair went as far as he could while he was still Prime Minister to register his disapproval of the decision that the UCU had taken.
	I pay tribute to the Minister for his commitment to countering the harm done by the UCU to the image of British academia abroad during his recent visit to Israel. I am also grateful for his steadfast reiteration of the Government's position at yesterday's Education and Skills questions. I was particularly struck by his observation that
	"Education must be a bridge between different peoples, and not a subject of conflict."—[ Official Report, 28 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 454.]
	When he replies, I hope that he will spend a little time developing his idea to hold a seminar in London involving Palestinian, Israeli and British academics. That would be a powerful symbol, and I welcome the idea.
	I hope that the Minister also agrees that independence from Government imposes responsibilities on both universities and any organisations that purport to speak for either students or lecturers. If lecturers, in particular, cannot lead by example, then all the guidance and legislation in the world will not make a jot of difference to campus racism. Indeed, as one professor wrote to me recently:
	"there should in my view be much more condemnation of academic leaders for failing to assail this movement—Dante on the hottest places in hell being reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in time of great moral crisis comes to mind."
	The boycott of Israeli academics has a long and sordid history. Harvard law professor Allan Dershowitz wrote in an article for  The Times that
	"the academic boycott resonates with earlier boycotts of Jews. The history of anti-Semitism is in part the history of boycotts of Jews."
	Both the Association of University Teachers and NATFHE have previously proposed a boycott of Israeli academics. The NATFHE motion two years ago called for a boycott of Israeli academics who did not
	"distance themselves from their government",
	although how they were supposed to do that without the revival of the Zionist equivalent of the Test Acts was, to the best of my knowledge, left unexplained.
	I want to contrast the laudable motion 193 passed at the NATFHE conference in 2005, which suggested inter alia that the union should
	"develop programmes with the Commission for Racial Equality and The Board of Deputies of British Jews to educate academics and students about the dangers of anti-Semitism",
	with the myopic, morally repugnant and intellectually bankrupt motion 30 from the UCU's most recent annual conference. That motion
	"condemns the complicity of Israeli academia in the occupation"
	of the Palestinian territories but fancifully supposes that
	"criticism of Israel cannot be construed as anti-Semitic".
	Those claims are extraordinary, and they are both lazy and dangerous.
	As a member of the alumni board of Harvard university, I am acutely aware that the issue has also raised its head on the other side of the Atlantic. In 2002, Larry Summers, the president of Harvard university, deplored the fact that by arguing that Israel should be the target of boycott and divestment policies
	"serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect, if not their intent."
	It is just a little too easy and glib to say that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, because the odd terminological inexactitude will swiftly turn one into the other.
	I pay tribute to representatives from my other alma mater, Oxford university, for attempting to expunge some of the historical rhetoric with an amendment to the motion, but the fact remains that the whole enterprise was never anything more than an example of gesture politics writ large. It wrongly imposes collective responsibility on academics, it is replete with double standards, and it has the ironic impact of silencing legitimate criticism from within the Israeli academic community. As another Newmark, who is the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, but no relation of mine, has said:
	"this is a full-frontal assault on academic freedom"
	and it
	"damages the credibility of British academia as a whole."
	I would add to that sentiment the observation of my own rabbi, Thomas Salamon, who wrote to me:
	"boycotts are like book burnings, which indicate the will and force to stifle all debate and thought. Boycotts of this nature endanger democracy and lead to hegemony and suppression of freedoms, only recently thrown off in Eastern Europe. To bunch all Israeli academics together is both against reason and common sense."
	As an advocate of wider engagement throughout the middle east, it pains me that an influential group of people should be seriously advocating disengagement with Israel. When the AUT last proposed a boycott of Israeli academics, the philosophical objection was summed up by the 21 Noble laureates who signed a joint letter that averred:
	"academic freedom has never been the property of a few and must not be manipulated by them...mixing science with politics, and limiting academic freedom by boycotts is wrong."
	I wonder how many Nobel laureates voted in favour of the UCU's motion. That motion is all the more dangerous because it establishes such a poor moral tone for UK academia. When it comes to discouraging racism, intolerance and prejudice in British universities, students have a right to expect strong leadership and high moral tone from their lecturers and their own representatives, as well as from Government.
	The proposed boycott by UCU members has cast a long shadow and points to a grave weakness in the architecture for dealing with the difficult interface between legitimate expression and religious discrimination that exists today in UK universities. It has also exposed a failure of leadership which cannot help but strike at the heart of any policy aimed at tackling racism. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) recently characterised the quality of that leadership, in his usual forthright manner, as
	"the vapourings of 158 overgrown student politicians."
	He is right. He joined the unequivocal condemnation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts).
	Universities UK, through the equality challenge unit, is committed to the challenge of stamping out racism in all its many forms. I hope that the Minister will be able to reaffirm the Government's commitment to supporting it in that task. Although the unit takes no official position on the UCU boycott debate, it is clearly crucial to the fight against racism and anti-Semitism in our universities. When the question of university anti-Semitism was debated in another place earlier this month, the chief executive of Universities UK, Baroness Warwick, gave a commitment that the unit would publish updated guidance to universities that focused on religion-related hate crimes. I very much hope that that guidance will prove decisive in addressing aspects of racism such as anti-Semitism, which are so often out of the limelight because they are harder to identify and, perhaps, easier to overlook.
	The last thing that universities need is more interference from Government. However, does the Minister believe that there is any scope for the new Department responsible for higher education and skills to consolidate the guidance, if not the legislation, that applies to campus racism? On the one hand we have guidance coming from the Government on how to deal with Islamic extremism; on the other, we have forthcoming guidance from the equality challenge unit on religious hate crimes. My concern is that university vice-chancellors are already bewildered by their responsibilities and their powers to combat racism, and that continuing to address the issue piecemeal will do little to improve the situation for students. Perhaps the Minister could also confirm what is being done to bolster the enforcement of existing legislation in order to crack down on campus racism.
	As Baroness Deech said in another place during the debate on anti-Semitism,
	"Universities are like the canary in the mine when it comes to bad indications."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2007; Vol. 692, c. 1661.]
	I encourage colleagues on both sides of the House to signal their support for academic freedom and contempt for anti-Semitism, in all its guises, by signing early-day motion 1603. I also hope that students and lecturers will act decisively to bury this sordid subject once and for all by supporting the "Stop the Boycott" campaign through the website www.stoptheboycott.org.
	It appears that there is still something of a bad smell caused by prejudice and racism in British universities, but I hope for a breath of fresh air from the UCU, so that the canary will live to see the light of day.